linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the imx-mxs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUGUFAXrCDyO-FufuEib9jVWi9FNF8oX-kifTjZEPvNFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:07:08 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, 
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, 
	Larisa Grigore <Larisa.Grigore@....com>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the imx-mxs tree

Hi Greg,

On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 at 10:18, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 05:21:38PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/s32g2.dtsi
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/s32g3.dtsi
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   06ee2f0e2180 ("arm64: dts: Add DSPI entries for S32G platforms")
> >
> > from the imx-mxs tree and commit:
> >
> >   d1b07cc0868f ("arm64: dts: s32g: Add USB device tree information for s32g2/s32g3")
> >
> > from the usb tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
>
> Looks good to me, thanks!

No it is not: the USB nodes do not follow the DTS sorting rules
(by unit-address).
Oh, apparently that was an issue with the original patch.  Looks like
it was applied (to the USB tree, not the freescale SoC tree), despite
several review comments pointing out valid issues?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds